EA Forums - Banner

Removing players once they take fortress

123457Next

Replies

  • gamerdruid
    2998 posts Moderator
    jaune7 wrote: »
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    I think you will find that shareholders in EA think that profit IS everything!

    For that, EA should put on the table a flawless game.
    Which it is not the case at the present time, and in fact, have not been happening for many years.
    So many errors, so many wrong bugs, exploits, shutdowns, etc, no wonder players are complaining, but still, profit is everything, right?
    Returning to the point of this thread, for the end game - or whatever you call when first FF is destroyed, with or without the players who participated in its destruction in the game, restrictions for them if not else, must be implemented as soon as possible.
    Also, why not bring back farming multi accounts? I think it would generate a good profit too, don't you think?

    I don't know of any game that is flawless, do you?
    Every title EA produces has flaws, but so do the ones from other companies. Players complain about something in every game.
    There is nothing stopping players playing with multiple accounts and funding them all (except their own lack of funds and time). I'm not an economist so I don't know if it will generate a profit if more do that or not. :Replying tongue in cheek: :wink:
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • The idea of being kicked off a server for winning seems both rude and outrageously ridiculous.

    If it was implemented, each alliance that was ready for the fortress hit would be at a crossroads and have to make a decision: "stay and play king of the hill" (the type of fun most people who start playing a war game are seeking), or "take a badge and exit" (recognition outside the server for their finish which is also desirable). Many people don't feel ready to leave when they kill the fortress, so in the best of cases, the ff hit would be delayed, and the players who want to move on would likely be unhappy about it. Also, the value of each badge diminishes, which means the each subsequent hit is less likely to take place. Eventually the decision will be to stay and not badge. Who wants a badge #10?

    The dynamic of having the server conquered by one team would not change. Just the team at the top of the hill would not have earned it.

    It is interesting to see the approach being taken by the voices promoting the forceful removal of the winning players on a server. These voices are of people who are incapable of winning, and are not interested in putting the required effort into competing, so they attempt to use political influence with the developers to remove the winners they hate so much. It seems a very underhanded way of taking over a server. In my opinion it is cheating.
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    [quote=" I'm not an economist so I don't know if it will generate a profit if more do that or not. :Replying tongue in cheek: :wink:

    As I just told you on another forum, you don't know anything about anything yet you find necessary to answer everybody's question. Give it a break, we know, you very active, you care, etc etc etc now stop making a clown of yourself. I never saw you give a good answer to anyone yet i never saw a question from anyone on any topic you didn't attempt to interject yourself in the discussion.


    What are you, 12? Seriously, from your responses you have about 20 years of experience ahead of you yet. He's a moderator and it's his job.
  • WarriorXG wrote: »
    The idea of being kicked off a server for winning seems both rude and outrageously ridiculous.

    If it was implemented, each alliance that was ready for the fortress hit would be at a crossroads and have to make a decision: "stay and play king of the hill" (the type of fun most people who start playing a war game are seeking), or "take a badge and exit" (recognition outside the server for their finish which is also desirable). Many people don't feel ready to leave when they kill the fortress, so in the best of cases, the ff hit would be delayed, and the players who want to move on would likely be unhappy about it. Also, the value of each badge diminishes, which means the each subsequent hit is less likely to take place. Eventually the decision will be to stay and not badge. Who wants a badge #10?

    The dynamic of having the server conquered by one team would not change. Just the team at the top of the hill would not have earned it.

    It is interesting to see the approach being taken by the voices promoting the forceful removal of the winning players on a server. These voices are of people who are incapable of winning, and are not interested in putting the required effort into competing, so they attempt to use political influence with the developers to remove the winners they hate so much. It seems a very underhanded way of taking over a server. In my opinion it is cheating.

    It's referred to as "mob rule", something this new generation is attempting. Like a stamping 2 year old who got told "no". Most playing don't understand the foundation of the game is and always has been "Defend the Castle". One of the rules is not, in any form, the complete death of the conquerors from the map. You're losing chess so you pull out a 45 and simply remove your opponent from the room so you can win at chess. Clueless doesn't begin to describe these people.
  • WarriorXG wrote: »
    The idea of being kicked off a server for winning seems both rude and outrageously ridiculous.

    If it was implemented, each alliance that was ready for the fortress hit would be at a crossroads and have to make a decision: "stay and play king of the hill" (the type of fun most people who start playing a war game are seeking), or "take a badge and exit" (recognition outside the server for their finish which is also desirable). Many people don't feel ready to leave when they kill the fortress, so in the best of cases, the ff hit would be delayed, and the players who want to move on would likely be unhappy about it. Also, the value of each badge diminishes, which means the each subsequent hit is less likely to take place. Eventually the decision will be to stay and not badge. Who wants a badge #10?

    The dynamic of having the server conquered by one team would not change. Just the team at the top of the hill would not have earned it.

    It is interesting to see the approach being taken by the voices promoting the forceful removal of the winning players on a server. These voices are of people who are incapable of winning, and are not interested in putting the required effort into competing, so they attempt to use political influence with the developers to remove the winners they hate so much. It seems a very underhanded way of taking over a server. In my opinion it is cheating.

    I don't know who you are reffering to when you say "they attempt to use political influence with the developers to remove the winners they hate so much". Who is hating who? Your words, unless you point the people you are reffering to and prove so, indicate a person who may manipulate others for it's own sake. In this case, your entire presentation lacks credibility.

    The game have flaws and different kind of exploits. Many players have cheated for years until developers started to improve the game. One example is the multiaccounts farming. Fortunately it had been removed, and if i remember corectly, after many debates on this forum with conns and pros from players worldwide.

    The idea is not to remove winners from a server. It would be a radical solution and, as few forum's moderators said, it is not a good idea. Personaly, i also think it would be a mistake and i am sure it will never be implemented, but i repeat this idea: A better continuation of the game after one alliance destroy the FF must be realised and deployed.

    For the game itself ! and for all players who enjoy and may discover one day this game .

  • Soixie wrote: »
    WarriorXG wrote: »
    The idea of being kicked off a server for winning seems both rude and outrageously ridiculous.

    If it was implemented, each alliance that was ready for the fortress hit would be at a crossroads and have to make a decision: "stay and play king of the hill" (the type of fun most people who start playing a war game are seeking), or "take a badge and exit" (recognition outside the server for their finish which is also desirable). Many people don't feel ready to leave when they kill the fortress, so in the best of cases, the ff hit would be delayed, and the players who want to move on would likely be unhappy about it. Also, the value of each badge diminishes, which means the each subsequent hit is less likely to take place. Eventually the decision will be to stay and not badge. Who wants a badge #10?

    The dynamic of having the server conquered by one team would not change. Just the team at the top of the hill would not have earned it.

    It is interesting to see the approach being taken by the voices promoting the forceful removal of the winning players on a server. These voices are of people who are incapable of winning, and are not interested in putting the required effort into competing, so they attempt to use political influence with the developers to remove the winners they hate so much. It seems a very underhanded way of taking over a server. In my opinion it is cheating.

    It's referred to as "mob rule", something this new generation is attempting. Like a stamping 2 year old who got told "no". Most playing don't understand the foundation of the game is and always has been "Defend the Castle". One of the rules is not, in any form, the complete death of the conquerors from the map. You're losing chess so you pull out a 45 and simply remove your opponent from the room so you can win at chess. Clueless doesn't begin to describe these people.
    Soixie wrote: »
    WarriorXG wrote: »
    The idea of being kicked off a server for winning seems both rude and outrageously ridiculous.

    If it was implemented, each alliance that was ready for the fortress hit would be at a crossroads and have to make a decision: "stay and play king of the hill" (the type of fun most people who start playing a war game are seeking), or "take a badge and exit" (recognition outside the server for their finish which is also desirable). Many people don't feel ready to leave when they kill the fortress, so in the best of cases, the ff hit would be delayed, and the players who want to move on would likely be unhappy about it. Also, the value of each badge diminishes, which means the each subsequent hit is less likely to take place. Eventually the decision will be to stay and not badge. Who wants a badge #10?

    The dynamic of having the server conquered by one team would not change. Just the team at the top of the hill would not have earned it.

    It is interesting to see the approach being taken by the voices promoting the forceful removal of the winning players on a server. These voices are of people who are incapable of winning, and are not interested in putting the required effort into competing, so they attempt to use political influence with the developers to remove the winners they hate so much. It seems a very underhanded way of taking over a server. In my opinion it is cheating.

    It's referred to as "mob rule", something this new generation is attempting. Like a stamping 2 year old who got told "no". Most playing don't understand the foundation of the game is and always has been "Defend the Castle". One of the rules is not, in any form, the complete death of the conquerors from the map. You're losing chess so you pull out a 45 and simply remove your opponent from the room so you can win at chess. Clueless doesn't begin to describe these people.

    You don't have to judge anybody with a different opinion than yours. It is too egocentric. What you can do is listen to the other players, no matter their opinions and be constructive in a discussion.

    It may be a "defend the castle" type of game, but this doesn't mean it can not be improved or even transformed into a better game, for all players. For example, for players who still contribute to the EA' profit, but with not so large amounts of money, or, for players who don't yet have the skills to be winners, or, for players who don't want their game on a server to be ruined by some dictator type players, etc.

  • nefrontheone
    404 posts Member
    edited October 2018
    jaune7 wrote: »
    You don't have to judge anybody with a different opinion than yours. It is too egocentric. What you can do is listen to the other players, no matter their opinions and be constructive in a discussion.

    It may be a "defend the castle" type of game, but this doesn't mean it can not be improved or even transformed into a better game, for all players. For example, for players who still contribute to the EA' profit, but with not so large amounts of money, or, for players who don't yet have the skills to be winners, or, for players who don't want their game on a server to be ruined by some dictator type players, etc.

    You don't have to judge anybody with a different opinion than yours. It is too egocentric. What you can do is listen to the other players, no matter their opinions and be constructive in a discussion.

    To improve a game it is not necessary to cut off the heads of the medal winners.
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • jaune7 wrote: »
    You don't have to judge anybody with a different opinion than yours. It is too egocentric. What you can do is listen to the other players, no matter their opinions and be constructive in a discussion.

    It may be a "defend the castle" type of game, but this doesn't mean it can not be improved or even transformed into a better game, for all players. For example, for players who still contribute to the EA' profit, but with not so large amounts of money, or, for players who don't yet have the skills to be winners, or, for players who don't want their game on a server to be ruined by some dictator type players, etc.

    You don't have to judge anybody with a different opinion than yours. It is too egocentric. What you can do is listen to the other players, no matter their opinions and be constructive in a discussion.

    To improve a game it is not necessary to cut off the heads of the medal winners.

    Please read more than one message. See two posts above.

    I've already said i agree that it would be a mistake to remove players from a server.
  • I just say that everyone (including ourselves) should be able to listen to the opinions of others, even if we do not like them.
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • jaune7 wrote: »
    I don't know who you are reffering to when you say "they attempt to use political influence with the developers to remove the winners they hate so much". Who is hating who?
    There are many instances in this thread where the winners of a server are referenced negatively, and verbal attacks are a demonstration of hatred. But with or without hatred towards the winners (or awareness of the hatred), the sentiment of removing winners (Title of this thread) is along the lines of: "I do not like this... winners are to blame... developers please kick them so I can have a situation i like more".
    jaune7 wrote: »
    Your words, unless you point the people you are reffering to and prove so, indicate a person who may manipulate others for it's own sake. In this case, your entire presentation lacks credibility.
    Hmm, an attack on my character... I will take that as a compliment. It means you feel that you cannot argue intelligibly to kick winners, and therefore must resort, without knowing me, to undermine my credibility. The truth is that my comments here are self-evident. Each person can read the thread and arrive at their own conclusion. I am sure many will agree with what I am saying.
    jaune7 wrote: »
    The idea is not to remove winners from a server. It would be a radical solution
    Unless you are talking about blended substances in a liquid, the word "solution" implies a "problem" to solve. There is no problem with winners establishing rules to achieve the objectives of their team on a server. It is part of the game strategy. Just because the losers do not like it, doesn't mean it is wrong and needs to be fixed. The name of this thread is "Removing players once they take the fortress". If that is not the idea now it is because there is a refusal of the moderators, not because there is a change of intent. Is like saying to the Olympic event organizers that you want all the top competing athletes that already have a gold medal, shot in the head, because you are not fast enough and you cannot win the running race. When they refuse, you say "It was radical to eliminate them entirely and no longer the idea and they can participate as you insist. Now I only want their legs cut off", as if that was reasonable, and when they refuse again you say "at least make them wear lead boots and run over ice so we can catch up to them. Whatever penalty is proposed to be applied to the winners, pushing for them in this forum is still cheating. The losing athletes should focus on improving their own performance. Get a trainer and lift weights and practice their starts and eat high protein snacks and better foods so they become faster and earn the medal honorably.
    jaune7 wrote: »
    i repeat this idea: A better continuation of the game after one alliance destroy the FF must be realised and deployed.
    If you have a suggestion of how to improve the end game, that does not include penalizing the winners, please share it. Unfortunately "better continuation" is to vague to be helpful, and "must be realized" is untrue. It is purely your opinion that it should be done, not the opinion of others here. Certainly not mine.

    My opinion is simple: Attempting to conquer a server by asking developers to undermine the efforts of the winners, is cheating. The game should be won using the politics and battlefields inside the game.
  • Any form of dictatorship manifested through players but especially alliances should be restricted.
    It is doubtful to allow immeasurable egos act like dictators.
    This is the reason this thread started, with couple complains about dictator's type players on different servers.
  • I believe one of the devs stated it best several pages back related to how this thread started though I'll paraphrase;

    The thread was started by some free-to-play accounts that got wiped off the map by a more powerful, smarter, well coordinated team of players who were funded and playing to the best of their ability within the rules of the game.

    If you don't like the playing field, alter your strategy or continue to be wiped off the map.
  • jaune7 wrote: »
    Any form of dictatorship manifested through players but especially alliances should be restricted.
    It is doubtful to allow immeasurable egos act like dictators.
    This is the reason this thread started, with couple complains about dictator's type players on different servers.

    This is a recurring type of accusation so is important to address this. There are some negatively charged words that are often applied by sore losers in order to present the winners as villains. Which of course, is what I spoke of earlier that is a demonstration of hatred. Whether or not you wish to admit it.

    Hateful definitions used by sore losers in this game:

    Dictator = Person in power who doesn't let you do what you want to do.
    Bully = Person who is stronger than you and threatens you.
    Extortion or Blackmail = When a person tells you of an undesirable consequence if you do not do as they say.
    Inflated Ego = Person who thinks it is within their capacity to give you orders.

    Here is what the words actually mean:

    Dictator = Person who uses illegitimate means to obtain and/or maintain power. For instance, rewrites constitution, and/or eliminates parliament influence so can take unchallenged decisions, cheats in elections so democracy is no longer effective. An elected president making changes that some people disagree with is not a dictator just because the president is saying how things will be.

    What some people are doing here attempting to take over worlds they have not rightfully earned by influencing developers into creating an unfavorable circumstance for the winners, is dictatorial in nature. It is the same intent as rigging an election. But a winning CIC in the game telling you that you cannot have a POI in the area they have conquered is not dictatorial in nature. The territory has been rightfully conquered and claimed by the winners. The POI belongs to them.

    Bully = Person who presents illegitimate claims using force or threat. Like asking a kid for his lunch money through intimidation. The bully has no right to the lunch money so it is bullying... But a police officer arresting someone is also stronger and threatening with a gun in hand, and forcing a situation the suspect does not want, but the officer has a legitimate right to do it, so is not bullying the suspect. Same as telling a thief that has entered your house, that you have a gun and they must leave your property immediately is not bullying the thief.

    The accusation of bullying in this game actually boils down to the losers saying that the winners do not have a legitimate right over the server. Which is untrue. The winners earned their claim, and if any team wishes to challenge the claim has the right to do it. Just make good choices, build fast and conquer the server.

    Extortion = illegitimate demand made with a threat associated to not doing it. Again is all about the legitimacy of the demand. An employer telling an employee they will be fired if they don't show up to work is not extortion. A teacher threatening a student with a failing grade if a project is not handed in by the deadline, or you telling a thief to remove themselves from your property or you will shoot them, are not extortion. Blackmail = A form of extortion trading an illegitimate demand for not revealing compromising information.

    So again is all about legitimacy of the demand. A CIC saying that you will be declared enemy if you help an enemy of the CIC's team is not extortion.

    Inflated Ego = Person who is deluded in his/her self perception, believing they are superior to other humans or entitled to things that do not belong to them. A loser telling a winner that the server must be organized according to the design of the loser, is an example of a loser with an inflated ego. They are not in a position to dictate terms but still feel entitled to it. But If the player is taking decisions within the realm of their job, as is the case of a winning CIC deciding the requirements of alliances that will be allowed within certain territories controlled by their team. That is not an inflated ego. That is someone taking decisions that are relevant to their duties and responsibilities to their team in their position as CIC.

    These same negative words are used by sore losers in every single server I have seen. Losing and adopting this type of negative attitude is unsportsmanlike. Try congratulating the winners, and asking the winners in good faith, if they will share the POI you want. If they choose not to share the POI, and you feel you cannot win a fight, then it is probably wise to back off their POI. The option you are choosing, of presenting the winners in a negative light by misusing these charged words to describe them is actually part of a tantrum because you didn't get what you wanted. And it is a sure recipe to earn yourself a strong enemy in the game. But it is your choice what strategic path to take.

    Just understand, that this cheating that is happening here in the forum attempting to influence developers to penalize winners in order to take over servers you have not earned, is a lot lower than just being a sore loser. Being a sore loser is distasteful, but the cheating is dishonorable. Is a huge difference.
  • methuselah
    384 posts Senior Moderator
    WarriorXG wrote: »
    The idea of being kicked off a server for winning seems both rude and outrageously ridiculous.

    I don't know about the rude part, the rest of it I'm totally with you. If I "win" a server then getting forceably removed from it isn't my idea of a spoil of victory.

    It's just not. I'm not saying the end game is perfect it isn't. I played for years when there was no fort and I was having a blast. I'm not condemning the fort, I'm simply saying there is far more to the game than just badging and your done.

    For some of us anyway.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!